Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on April 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

RORY REID, SON OF SEN. HARRY REID: We believe in a country in which we are subject to laws and you can’t just ignore the laws we don’t like. I think clearly if state and local prosecutors look at this more closely, they’re going to find that he broke the law and he should be prosecuted…

REID: He is not a victim and he’s not a hero. He’s been using that he doesn’t own for over 20 years and he didn’t pay. He broke the law. There are hundreds of ranchers throughout Nevada that conduct their profession honorably. There’s thousands of them throughout the country and when they have a dispute with the BLM they try to work it out.

***

“You’ve got to find candidates who can win and then you don’t have to worry about Harry Reid,” said co-host Greg Gutfeld after lamenting the GOP’s choice of nominee to face Reid in his 2010 Senate reelection bid. “We don’t want to focus too much on this battle. We should see that the bigger battle is at the ballot box.”

Turning to Perino, co-host Eric Bolling asked if the rumors that Reid’s son had engaged a Chinese firm to build a solar plant on the disputed real estate or that a former Reid aide who now heads the Bureau of Land Management had any merit.

Perino said that the rumors about a solar plant were “debunked” and Reid’s former aide was confirmed by a bipartisan Senate majority. “There are good staffers out there,” Perino asserted.

TUCKER CARLSON: It was moving in an ugly direction and I think the Feds exacerbated it by showing up with snarling dogs and drawn weapons.That’s appropriate when you are dealing with a drug cartel, not an elderly rancher. On the other hand, the Bundys don’t have a legal case that I can see to be totally honest about it.

And this is public land, this is not land that they owned. And if you are going to use public land for profit, you have to pay for it. And they haven’t. And so the bottom line is this is something I think conservatives ought to remember, if you want a ranch without any impediment at all, you have to buy your own ranch. That is the essence, that is the core principle behind private property which undergirds conservatism.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Bundys. I think they were completely mistreated by the federal government. But I still think it’s important to point out that this land does not belong to them and that’s not a minor distinction, it’s the essence of private property. Sorry.

***

[I]t is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.

The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission? Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?…

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

***

The disproportionate nature of the government’s reaction to Bundy suggests this has less to do with delinquent grazing fees than it does with the selective assertion of raw governmental power — sending a message not just to Bundy or a disfavored group, but to America as a whole. The same federal government that deploys Bureau of Land Management shooters tricked out like SEAL Team 6 directs Border Patrol agents to flee from aggressive illegal immigrants. The same federal government that would fire and prosecute federal agents who physically restrain border-crossers sends agents to tase and sic German shepherds on ordinary Americans exercising First Amendment rights.

One can acknowledge that the government has the right — in fact, the responsibility — to enforce the law, yet object that this administration habitually enforces the law in a capricious, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner. They imperiously go after a Bundy while excusing scores of miscreants whose get-out-of-jail-free card is membership in a politically-correct class. They regularly waive legal requirements out of sheer political expediency. They fail to defend duly enacted statutes with which they, the enlightened, disagree.

One can concede that the federal government may take reasonable steps to (ostensibly) protect endangered species, but reject that such creatures should be given primacy over human beings humbly trying to earn a living. It’s a bit unsettling, to say the least, that this administration has displayed more resolve (and animosity) toward Clive Bundy than it has toward Vladimir Putin or Bashar al-Assad.

***

Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition; Mr. Gandhi himself habitually was among the first to acknowledge that fact, refusing to offer a defense in his sedition case and arguing that the judge had no choice but to resign, in protest of the perfectly legal injustice unfolding in his courtroom, or to sentence him to the harshest sentence possible, there being no extenuating circumstances for Mr. Gandhi’s intentional violation of the law. Henry David Thoreau was happy to spend his time in jail, knowing that the law was against him, whatever side justice was on…

Harry Reid, apparently eager for somebody to play the role of General Dyer in this civil-disobedience drama, promises that this is “not over.” And, in a sense, it can’t be over: The theory of modern government is fundamentally Hobbesian in its insistence that where political obedience is demanded, that demand must be satisfied lest we regress into bellum omnium contra omnes. I myself am of the view that there is a great deal of real estate between complete submission and civil war, and that acts such as Mr. Bundy’s are not only bearable in a free republic but positively salubrious…

If the conservatives in official Washington want to do something other than stand by and look impotent, they might consider pressing for legislation that would oblige the federal government to divest itself of 1 percent of its land and other real estate each year for the foreseeable future through an open auction process. Even the Obama administration has identified a very large portfolio of office buildings and other federal holdings that are unused or under-used. By some estimates, superfluous federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.

***

As government grows ever-larger, majority rule becomes more consequential for minority populations. The regulatory state grows, and rural Americans are left with little recourse. The courts won’t overturn regulatory actions absent a clearly-identified liberty interest (with the law granting wide discretion to federal agencies), in many states legislatures are dominated by urban voting blocs, and — particularly in the West — massive federal ownership of land means the voice of the local farmer or landowner is diluted into meaninglessness within the larger national debate.

With few options left within conventional politics, rural Americans are beginning to contemplate more dramatic measures, such as the state secession movements building in Colorado, Maryland, California, and elsewhere. The more viable state secession movements aim to limit urban control by literally removing rural counties from their states and forming new states around geographic regions of common interests…

Beck said on his television program Monday that, according to PsyID, a company that monitors social media, between 10 and 15 percent of those who are taking a stand for Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy are “truly frightening” and “don’t care what the facts are; they just want a fight.” Beck likened them to “the right’s version of Occupy Wall Street.”

“Right now,” Beck continued on his radio program, “if you go to my Facebook page, you will see these people everywhere. They are the people that are full of anger and rage … The common theme seems to be, ‘I’m shocked at Glenn Beck. I always knew he was a fraud.’”…

“I want you to listen carefully to it, because I am planting my flag here,” Beck said. “If you are somebody that says ‘I’m for violence … I am angry and I’m not going to take it anymore, and I’m going to act on that anger,’ then I want you to go to my Facebook page and unfriend me. I want you to go to my newsletter page and I want you to unsubscribe. I want you to go to TheBlaze TV and I want you to cancel your subscription today.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

But it was quoting someone in the Kiev government. Not sure how reliable that is?

kcewa on April 16, 2014 at 5:34 AM

That, and when you say, “have orders to shoot to kill,” it begs the question of who is giving the orders. Asked and answered — but it made me start frowning at what’s probably a dog and pony show to begin with.

I don’t think he has been particularly helpful, particularly with respect to his redistribution ideology,” Carson said. “Because he’s made a lot of people think that that’s all that the blacks want — they want to get our money and to get our wealth, and they think that we owe them this and that, and of course there are a lot of people of all races who do not believe that. – World-Renowned Neurosurgeon (who just happens to be Black)

– Dr. Ben Carson, on President Barack Hussein Obama

My take:Liberal Democrats Still Using the Race Card…and Black Americans

“First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?

Bundy appears to be arguing that he need not pay grazing fees because the state never gave the land to the federal government, or something like that. (Hinderaker says that an astonishing 80% of Nevada is federally owned.) Allahpundit’s post on this quotes the Nevada constitution on this point, and it seems to say otherwise:

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

Indeed, the Nevada constitution seems fairly clear and obsequious regarding the point of federal supremacy:

Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

I think Section 3 provides that the citizens of Nevada will pick up the feds’ dry cleaning whenever needed.

The Nevada constitution was ratified during the War Between the States, if that provides any context for the bowing and scraping evident in the passage above….”

“The Bundy Ranch “VO” is now the last large cattle ranch standing in Clark County. According to an anonymous source who has lived in Nevada for thirty-five years, the other major ranches in Clark County have been driven out of existence for one reason or another by the BLM and the Feds. It is claimed that the BLM are masquerading as conservationists, using their federal power to wield the final blow to reclaim the settlement rights they once honored to settlers like the Bundys.

The real wealth is in the water to support the plush green golf courses, and surrounding housing developments, gleaming swimming pools, and other demands by hotels and households in Las Vegas, Arizona, and Southern California.

The same anonymous source claims that there has been a pattern of behavior: land in Clark County has been targeted as property that the BLM can use; the BLM makes an offer to buy the property from the owner (prices vary, but it can be a very low market price); the BLM purchases the land; the property is then stripped of the water rights; and the land is resold without the right to water resources. But what good is a farm or ranch without water?

In other words, the BLM is not only driving out the cattle, the cattle rancher, and potentially any wildlife that depends on the riparian environment. The BLM is setting up a situation whereby the surrounding small towns will also go extinct. The BLM’s actions are ensuring that no one will return to the area.

Although Nevada Senator Dean Heller has issued a public statement about his concern over the handling of the Bundy family case, he has not elaborated on the water issue.

The author made several attempts to reach Heller’s communications director regarding the importance of water related to this case, but there was no response from Senator Heller’s office.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has kept his official statement simple over the past few days. Senator Reid “hopes that the transpassing of cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.” While it is not clear exactly what “transpassing” means, what is more obvious is that some in the media have overlooked the small detail that the head of the Bureau of Land Management, a division of the Department of Interior, is Neil Kornze, who was also the former senior policy advisor to Senator Reid from 2003 to 2011. Mr. Kornze has served as the BLM principal deputy director for a little over a year, until the U.S. Senate confirmed him as the director of the BLM a few days ago.

On April 8, three days ago, Senator Reid posted the following press release on his website:

I’m pleased that the Senate confirmed Neil Kornze as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management today. Neil is just perfect for this position. Raised in Elko, Nevada, Neil really understands the role of public lands in rural America, and natural resources across the West.

Senator Reid continued:

His expertise is going to be invaluable to the Bureau of Land Management. I have every bit of confidence that Neil Kornze will be the best director we have ever had at BLM and I wish him success in this role.

Furthermore, it might be coincidental that the problems with the Bundy cattle ranching began in 1993, the same year Patricia Mulroy began serving as general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. From 1989, Ms. Mulroy was also the general manager of the Las Vegas Valley Water District. The author attempted to contact Ms. Mulroy for a comment, but she retired from both positions a few months ago in February.

It’s also possible the drought in the western states could have been the catalyst to the desperate actions by the federal authorities surrounding the Bundy cattle operation. Currently, water rights in Nevada run anywhere from $7,000 to $50,000 per acre-foot (depending on the time of year and the amount of rainfall or snowfall in the western region). The water in Nevada is then auctioned, as it has been for at least twenty-five years. That same water can be resold in Las Vegas, Arizona, or Southern California.

Bunkerville in Nevada is ensconced between the Virgin River and the main road, Riverside Road. The Virgin River is a tributary to Lake Mead. The river, along with other sources, discharges into Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States. Both the Virgin River and Lake Mead are part of the Colorado River Basin. In fact, Lake Mead is considered the largest surface water collection for the Colorado River. Whoever controls the water controls the vast wealth that is distributed to a network of states at a crucial time during a water shortage.

So why, then, are there rumors of about 5,000 concerned citizens flocking to the aid of a family that seems to have a simple property rights dispute? It appears that it is because it is not just the Bundy Family under threat of threats of regulations – a figurative gun ready to fire at their very existence. Either the citizens of America have long tolerated mounting regulations, or they have not noticed them.

mericans have been surrounded, deliberately corralled, by an increasing code of regulations. Americans have regulations pointed at their health care in the form of ObamaCare, their finances by the mercurial IRS, their communications by the NSA, the future education of young Americans by the newly launched Common Core. When will Americans reach the tipping point? It might all begin in Senator Reid’s home state – the Nevadan Wild West….”

TUCKER CARLSON: It was moving in an ugly direction and I think the Feds exacerbated it by showing up with snarling dogs and drawn weapons.That’s appropriate when you are dealing with a drug cartel, not an elderly rancher. On the other hand, the Bundys don’t have a legal case that I can see to be totally honest about it.

Actually, Tucker Carlson (who I like), is completely wrong.

The US Constitution only authorizes the Federal government to own land for “needful BUILDINGS”, post roads, ports and military/armory use. The land in conflict does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement for Federal ownership.

Thus, the Federal government does not own the land. It belongs lawfully to the state of Nevada.

Bundy has been paying Nevada for the use of that land.

The Federal government should not legally have a dog in this hunt.

Currently, the Feral government (sorry, couldn’t help myself) claims to own 84.5% of Nevada and 27% of all of America. That should be an awful lot of “needful buildings”, post roads, ports and military/armory buildings… which don’t seem to exist!

I have decided not to on this subject until we all learn more of the back ground of events that got the situation to the point it is now. Thanks for the information, as this issue is bigger and different that I originally thought. I did live in rural Utah and understand the dislike that many, if not most, have for the Federal Government. Hope this story does not fall off the radar screen. As you find more information, please post it so we all can better understand the situation. Again, thanks.

Never really understood Aums being one cow and one calf and equalling $1.23 until this morning. Is anyone else having prblems with block quoting or am I just sober this morning? Maybe I need one of Axe’s truck drivers vitamins.

workingclass artist on April 16, 2014 at 8:01 AM
workingclass artist on April 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM

thank you for your posts..
it dovetails with what I have been pondering for days..
this is a lot about water..for the fountains n pools in Vegas..
or as you point out auctioned off to soCal..
I wondered where this guys lawyer was??..
one side has the Majority leader of the Senate speaking..
the other…a old befuddled rancher and his sons..
I wondered If he was a poor dirt farmer.. or what the deal was..
so I looked at google earth.. and saw the land..i think..?
yes the Virgin river is a tributary of Lake Mead.. seen herehttps://www.google.com/maps/@36.6261779,-114.262416,11z?hl=en
I also believe this is the ranch in question,,https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7084611,-114.2490192,1067m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
and clearly you can see someone has diverted the water here..https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7399793,-114.1936787,133m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
you can clearly see someone has built this berm to redirect the water.. they also left a dozer.. seen at the bottom on that link..
water rights is serious business in farming…ask the ranchers of California..
I am starting to think this is more about water,
than grazing fees or some turtle ..
though I would like to hear more about the turtle reserve moving,
from where to where?.. how much land is needed?..at what cost?
there is not much within 50 miles of this place how much land do turtles need?
im not saying mr Bundy is right or wrong…
yes I think the Government is overreaching…plenty..
but I also know I you cant just get some cows and use federal
land any way you see fit…
can I find some nice Snake River property and build a log home for free??
having rafted the Snake many times and have run into the BLM guys..
the answer here is NO..
i am starting to believe…water rights is the focus here..

the ranch diverts some percentage of this thru its aqueduct system
that encircles the ranch…
this aqueduct runs for several miles around the ranch..
maybe Harry promised that water to the fountains at the Bellagio
in Las Vegas..
with a water shortage across the whole west…
this looks like a water war.